Are treatment targets for hypercholesterolemia evidence based? Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

2010 ◽  
Vol 95 (9) ◽  
pp. 673-680 ◽  
Author(s):  
Y. Lebenthal ◽  
A. Horvath ◽  
P. Dziechciarz ◽  
H. Szajewska ◽  
R. Shamir
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Treatment Targets ◽  
Randomised Controlled

scholarly journals M89. PHARMACOLOGICAL INTERVENTIONS FOR SMOKING CESSATION AMONG PEOPLE WITH SCHIZOPHRENIA: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS

2020 ◽  
Vol 46 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S168-S168
Author(s):  
Dan Siskind ◽  
Brian Wu ◽  
Tommy Wong ◽  
Steve Kisely
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Smoking Abstinence ◽  
Pharmacological Interventions ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract Background People living with schizophrenia are 3 times more likely to smoke than the general population, and have fewer and less successful quitting attempts. In concert with psychosocial quit interventions, there is a need for evidence based pharmacological interventions to assist people living with schizophrenia achieve smoking abstinence. Methods We systematically searched PubMed, PsycInfo, EMBASE and Cochrane for randomised controlled trials of pharmacological interventions for reducing smoking among people living with schizophrenia. We conducted pairwise and network meta-analyses of effectiveness of interventions for achieving abstinence and reduction in smoking. We also examined psychiatric and physical adverse events of interventions. Results Nineteen studies were included in the systematic review. Data was available for buproprion, varenicline and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT). Buproprion (RR 3.4, 95%CI 1.6–7.3, p=0.002), varenicline (RR 3.8, 95%CI 2.0–7.2, p<0.001) and NRT (RR 4.3, 95%CI 1.7–10.7, p=0.002) were all associated with increased rates of abstinence in pairwise meta-analyses. In a network meta-analysis varenicline was superior to buproprion (RR 2.0, 95%CI 1.0–3.9), however there was no statistically significant difference between varenicline and NRT or buproprion and NRT. Varenicline was associated with higher rates of nausea than placebo. Discussion Buproprion, varenicline and NRT were all superior to placebo for achieving abstinence. Varenicline appears to be superior to buproprion for achieving abstinence, however varenicline is associated with higher rates of nausea.

scholarly journals Evidence-based prevention of Alzheimer's disease: systematic review and meta-analysis of 243 observational prospective studies and 153 randomised controlled trials

2020 ◽  
Vol 91 (11) ◽  
pp. 1201-1209 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jin-Tai Yu ◽  
Wei Xu ◽  
Chen-Chen Tan ◽  
Sandrine Andrieu ◽  
John Suckling ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Alzheimer’S Disease ◽  
Alzheimer's Disease ◽  
Prospective Studies ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Randomised Controlled

BackgroundEvidence on preventing Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is challenging to interpret due to varying study designs with heterogeneous endpoints and credibility. We completed a systematic review and meta-analysis of current evidence with prospective designs to propose evidence-based suggestions on AD prevention.MethodsElectronic databases and relevant websites were searched from inception to 1 March 2019. Both observational prospective studies (OPSs) and randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included. The multivariable-adjusted effect estimates were pooled by random-effects models, with credibility assessment according to its risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecision. Levels of evidence and classes of suggestions were summarised.ResultsA total of 44 676 reports were identified, and 243 OPSs and 153 RCTs were eligible for analysis after exclusion based on pre-decided criteria, from which 104 modifiable factors and 11 interventions were included in the meta-analyses. Twenty-one suggestions are proposed based on the consolidated evidence, with Class I suggestions targeting 19 factors: 10 with Level A strong evidence (education, cognitive activity, high body mass index in latelife, hyperhomocysteinaemia, depression, stress, diabetes, head trauma, hypertension in midlife and orthostatic hypotension) and 9 with Level B weaker evidence (obesity in midlife, weight loss in late life, physical exercise, smoking, sleep, cerebrovascular disease, frailty, atrial fibrillation and vitamin C). In contrast, two interventions are not recommended: oestrogen replacement therapy (Level A2) and acetylcholinesterase inhibitors (Level B).InterpretationEvidence-based suggestions are proposed, offering clinicians and stakeholders current guidance for the prevention of AD.

Do sleep interventions change sleep duration in children aged 0-5 years? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

2021 ◽  
pp. 101498
Author(s):  
LouiseJ. Fangupo ◽  
Jillian J. Haszard ◽  
Andrew N. Reynolds ◽  
Albany W. Lucas ◽  
Deborah R. McIntosh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Sleep Duration ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomised Controlled

scholarly journals Comparative efficacy and safety of interventions for treating head lice: a protocol for systematic review and network meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. e001129
Author(s):  
Bill Stevenson ◽  
Wubshet Tesfaye ◽  
Julia Christenson ◽  
Cynthia Mathew ◽  
Solomon Abrha ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Head Lice ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Meta Analyses

BackgroundHead lice infestation is a major public health problem around the globe. Its treatment is challenging due to product failures resulting from rapidly emerging resistance to existing treatments, incorrect treatment applications and misdiagnosis. Various head lice treatments with different mechanism of action have been developed and explored over the years, with limited report on systematic assessments of their efficacy and safety. This work aims to present a robust evidence summarising the interventions used in head lice.MethodThis is a systematic review and network meta-analysis which will be reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement for network meta-analyses. Selected databases, including PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, CINAHL and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials will be systematically searched for randomised controlled trials exploring head lice treatments. Searches will be limited to trials published in English from database inception till 2021. Grey literature will be identified through Open Grey, AHRQ, Grey Literature Report, Grey Matters, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry and International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number registry. Additional studies will be sought from reference lists of included studies. Study screening, selection, data extraction and assessment of methodological quality will be undertaken by two independent reviewers, with disagreements resolved via a third reviewer. The primary outcome measure is the relative risk of cure at 7 and 14 days postinitial treatment. Secondary outcome measures may include adverse drug events, ovicidal activity, treatment compliance and acceptability, and reinfestation. Information from direct and indirect evidence will be used to generate the effect sizes (relative risk) to compare the efficacy and safety of individual head lice treatments against a common comparator (placebo and/or permethrin). Risk of bias assessment will be undertaken by two independent reviewers using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the certainty of evidence assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations guideline for network meta-analysis. All quantitative analyses will be conducted using STATA V.16.DiscussionThe evidence generated from this systematic review and meta-analysis is intended for use in evidence-driven treatment of head lice infestations and will be instrumental in informing health professionals, public health practitioners and policy-makers.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42017073375.

scholarly journals Corticosteroid Injection Alone or Combined with Surgical Excision of Keloids versus Other Therapies Including Ionising Radiotherapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 41-54
Author(s):  
Ru Wang ◽  
Patricia L. Danielsen ◽  
Magnus S. Ågren ◽  
Janine Duke ◽  
Fiona Wood ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Corticosteroid Injection ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Interferon Α ◽  
Surgical Removal ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Intralesional Corticosteroid ◽  
Intralesional Injections ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Keloid scars are difficult to manage and remain a therapeutic challenge. Corticosteroid therapy alone or ionising radiation (radiotherapy) alone or combined with surgery are first-line treatments, but the scientific justification for these treatments is unclear. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is to assess the effects of intralesional corticosteroid injection in treating keloids or preventing their recurrence after surgical removal. Searches for RCTs were conducted through the MEDLINE, EMBASE, EBSCO and Cochrane databases from January 1974 to September 2017. Two authors independently reviewed study eligibility, extracted data, analysed the results, and assessed methodological quality. Sixteen RCTs that included more than 814 patients were scrutinised. The quality of evidence for most outcomes was moderate to high. In 10 RCTs, corticosteroid intralesional injections were compared with 5-fluorouracil, etanercept, cryosurgery, botulinum toxin, topical corticosteroid under a silicone dressing, and radiotherapy. Corticosteroid intralesional injections were more effective than radiotherapy (RR 3.3, 95% CI: 1.4–8.1) but equipotent with the other interventions. In conjunction with keloid excision, corticosteroid treatment was compared with radiotherapy, interferon α-2b and verapamil. In two RCTs, there were fewer keloid recurrences (RR 0.43, 95% CI: 0.21–0.89) demonstrated with adjuvant radiotherapy than with corticosteroid injections. More high-quality, large-scale RCTs are required to establish the effectiveness of corticosteroids and other therapies in keloid management.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document